Tom Carmichael Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Hello. I have an opportunity to purchase this item but I am not sure if it is a Mammoth or Mastodon Tusk or a piece of petrified wood? It is 36" long and weighs 97 pounds. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fossildude19 Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Petrified wood, for me. Wait for other opinions, but I do not see any Schreger lines to indicate fossil ivory. 1 Tim - VETERAN SHALE SPLITTER VFOTM --- APRIL - 2015 __________________________________________________ "In every walk with nature one receives far more than he seeks." John Muir ~ ~ ~ ~ ><))))( *> About Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Given the variability in thickness of the layers, I think it is petrified wood. 1 "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 My impression is ivory. I don't think that pet wood delaminates like this. I see no Schreger lines, but the ends are crushed and, to a degree, are obscured with mud(?). There doesn't seem to be any conchoidal fractures or waxy appearance on the raw edges to suggest permineralized or replaced wood. Since we don't know anything about how and where the object was recovered, I suppose anything is possible -- a subfossil, a minimally mineralized chunk of wood perhaps. I still lean towards ivory. 1 1 http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Photos of the other side (without the labels) could be useful. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Schreger Lines are the standard which will conclusively distinguish this ambiguous piece as tusk rather than wood. I'd ask for a series of additional images from one of the ends showing closer views till the cross-hatched lines are visible. A 97 pound piece of pet wood is certainly not as valuable as a similar size piece of tusk and so you don't want to have something this heavy shipped (and returned) if it cannot conclusively prove that it is what is claimed. Even on a really worn piece like this there should be some section that clearly shows these cross-hatchings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schreger_line Cheers. -Ken P.S.: From the outside surface texture and what might appear to be darker heartwood on the inside, I'd be in the pet wood camp if I had to place a bet on this based just on these photos. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Have them do a hardness test with a metal knife blade. It will not scratch if it is a silicified piece of wood. Ivory will scratch since it has a hardness of 3-5. 1 My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 8 minutes ago, DPS Ammonite said: Ivory will scratch since it has a hardness of 3-5. Will that apply to fossil ivory as well? For me, the Schreger Lines are still the most conclusive. Cheers. -Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 8 minutes ago, digit said: Will that apply to fossil ivory as well? Ah, a little digging online has answered that: Mammoth ivory is one of the hardest materials in this range (Mohs hardness 3-5). Fresh ivory somewhat softer: The hardness of an elephant's tusks registers approximately 2.75-3.50 on the Mohs scale. Cheers. -Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daves64 Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 (edited) I'm thinking wood. Could have been partially rotten and/or squashed a bit to cause the gaps. It also has what looks a knot (branch) area in the first pic, upper right. I could be mistaken though, wouldn't be the first, or last time. Edited February 22, 2023 by daves64 Accomplishing the impossible means only that the boss will add it to your regular duties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DPS Ammonite Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 28 minutes ago, digit said: Will that apply to fossil ivory as well? For me, the Schreger Lines are still the most conclusive. Cheers. -Ken Has anyone ever heard of Mammoth / Mastodon Tusks being silicified? They probably are a little too young for many to become silicified. My goal is to leave no stone or fossil unturned. See my Arizona Paleontology Guide link The best single resource for Arizona paleontology anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 I can't say it looks like ivory, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't look like wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Carmichael Posted February 22, 2023 Author Share Posted February 22, 2023 All - I appreciate all of the input so far. I do not have any additional photos and am no longer near the piece. Please note that I did provide photos of both ends of the piece. It supposedly did come out of the Big Bone Lick (Kentucky) area if that helps. I have a few pieces of mammoth and mastodon tusks in my collection but none of them are near this heavy. This piece feels like stone / rock. I was also concerned that this piece doesn't appear to have any curvature to it. It is very straight. And, when I look at it from one of the ends, it does not appear to be perfectly round. It is slightly oblong. Thanks again for your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 13 minutes ago, Tom Carmichael said: I was also concerned that this piece doesn't appear to have any curvature to it. At this diameter it would almost have the root/proximal end, which doesn't have much curvature. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 44 minutes ago, daves64 said: I'm thinking wood. Could have been partially rotten and/or squashed a bit to cause the gaps. It also has what looks a knot (branch) area in the first pic, upper right. I could be mistaken though, wouldn't be the first, or last time. Daves64 has a good angle -- wood typically has knots. I don't see any unambiguous knots in the first image, though. Images of the other side of the piece might be revelatory; even small knots from early growth would be dispositive. 1 http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Carmichael Posted February 22, 2023 Author Share Posted February 22, 2023 Here is a photo on the other side. I don't see any knots. Thnx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnJ Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 The subtle grain shifts and knot like features suggest fossil wood. Too bad focused close ups of the ends are not available. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. - JJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Carmichael Posted February 22, 2023 Author Share Posted February 22, 2023 I just contacted the seller and asked for close-ups. Hopefully will have them soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 1 hour ago, daves64 said: Could have been partially rotten Late wood in the rings of a wood from this site would be considerably more dense than early. Usually in modern wood the pattern is quite persistent as decay progresses. 11 minutes ago, JohnJ said: The subtle grain shifts and knot like features suggest fossil wood. It's not clear to me that these aren't the result of dents that have penetrated the layering. A cylinder like shape that crossed the layering as a knot would might do it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Carmichael Posted February 22, 2023 Author Share Posted February 22, 2023 Additional photos from seller. I hope these help. Thnx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Carmichael Posted February 22, 2023 Author Share Posted February 22, 2023 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Unfortunately, all the additional images are lower resolution and are not really close enough to reveal the presence of any Schreger Lines. I noticed the two original end images are higher resolution. I've downloaded them and I'm going to do some processing and zoomed-in scanning to see if I can spot any conclusive cross-hatching. Cheers. -Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Carmichael Posted February 22, 2023 Author Share Posted February 22, 2023 Ken - Thank you. I took the two higher resolution photos when I was at the seller's house earlier today. The additional photos are from seller. Sorry about the low resolution on additional photos. Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digit Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 Did a close-up zoom-in scan of the higher resolution images from the two ends. Looked in all the clean-break areas for signs of the telltale cross-hatching but cannot spot any. Mostly it looks very fibrous and the breaks are very cubic/angular which I've seen more on chunks of pet wood that has dried out (checked) before being mineralized. The darker rounded plug in the middle of one end still reminds me of darker heartwood and is unlike the cone-in-cone formation of a piece of tusk. I can see what looks like some white glue squeeze-out on this end as well but sadly no unambiguous Schreger Lines. I'm still not seeing any indicators that definitely and conclusively indicate that this is tusk material. Not saying that it could not be a really eroded and poorly preserved break that is masking the proper features but if it were me I'd need to see some Schreger Lines before adding something like this to my collection. Cheers. -Ken 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockwood Posted February 22, 2023 Share Posted February 22, 2023 16 minutes ago, digit said: The darker rounded plug in the middle of one end still reminds me of darker heartwood and is unlike the cone-in-cone formation of a piece of tusk Would a tooth not have a canal in the root ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now